Krishnamurti & the Art of Awakening
General Discussion | moderated by Dev Singh

What is passion?


Displaying posts 61 - 90 of 146 in total
Fri, 01 Mar 2019 #61
Thumb_img_0244 Jack Pine United States 5755 posts in this forum Offline

One Self wrote:
The reference was posted on the post #54 for those who have eyes.

I hope this doesn't come as a shock to you but not everyone reads everything you post. Do you want me to tell you why or can you guess?

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 01 Mar 2019 #62
Thumb_screenshot_20180710-010635 One Self United States 1456 posts in this forum Offline

Actually I rather you who have a twisted mind (which you justify it by calling it conditioning) not to read my posts.

Jack Pine wrote:
not everyone reads everything you post.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 01 Mar 2019 #63
Thumb_pd Paul Dimmock United Kingdom 210 posts in this forum Offline

Jack Pine: What's the point of waiting to the end of your life to die to what is enslaving us now? ... We're not talking about the traditional view of dying.

I agree. This is far from the traditional view, if you will have a little patience with me. For you are ignoring my question, which is about the nature of the psychological accumulation. What is enslaving us now, - all our conditioning - is it a living thing? I say it is not. In other words, it is already dead; so there is nothing to die to. And so there is yet another layer to all this, which is that the entity who says, 'Can I die to the past?' this entity itself is also something already dead. It is this side of the question I want to explore, if anyone is willing.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 01 Mar 2019 #64
Thumb_profiel Wim Opdam Belgium 1398 posts in this forum Offline

Paul Dimmock wrote:
What is enslaving us now, - all our conditioning - is it a living thing? I say it is not. In other words, it is already dead; so there is nothing to die to.

Paul,

You may say what you want, but that appears a lot different from what K. is saying !

Flight of the Eagle | Chapter 6 Amsterdam 4th Public Talk 11th May 1969

One has to find out the meaning of living, not merely giving an intellectual significance to it, but looking at what it means to live. And one has also to go into this question of what love is, and what it means to die. Al this has to be examined in the conscious and the deep, hidden recesses of one's own mind. One has to ask what order is, what living really means, and whether one can live a life of complete, total affection, compassion, tenderness and love. One has also to find out for oneself the meaning of that extraordinary thing called death.

These are not fragments, but the total movement, the wholeness of life.
We shall not be able to understand this if we cut it up into living,
loving and dying - it is all one movement.

To understand its total process, there must be energy, not only intellectual energy but energy of strong feeling, which involves having motiveless passion, so that it is constantly burning within one. And as our minds are fragmented, it is necessary to go into this question of the conscious and the unconscious, for there begins all division - the 'me' and `not me,' the 'you' and 'me,' the 'we' and 'they.' As long as this separation exists - nationally, in the family, between religions with their separate possessive dependencies - there will inevitably be divisions in life. There will be the living of everyday life with its boredom and routine and that thing which we call love, hedged about by jealousy, possessiveness, dependence, and domination, there will be fear, the inevitability of death.

P.s.: Bolding is mine

Truth will unfold itself to those who enquire their own actions.

Sign in to recommend  This post has been recommended by 1 reader
Back to Top
Sat, 02 Mar 2019 #65
Thumb_pd Paul Dimmock United Kingdom 210 posts in this forum Offline

Wim Opdam: You may say what you want, but that appears a lot different from what K is saying.

Sir, I have said what I want: to explore this question. You cannot explore this with me if you just compare what I am saying with what K said fifty years ago and draw a quick conclusion.

K; Amsterdam, 11th May 1969: These are not fragments, but the total movement, the wholeness of life. We shall not be able to understand this if we cut it up into living, loving and dying - it is all one movement. To understand its total process, there must be energy, not only intellectual energy but energy of strong feeling, which involves having motiveless passion, so that it is constantly burning within one.

I am saying that not only are our conditioned responses, thoughts, beliefs and opinions based on something already dead and gone but it is also the thinker, the seeker and the investigator trying to make sense of the past who is himself already dead and gone. Therefore, what is living? What is the source of any real and vibrant energy, if there is such a thing? K calls it motiveless passion, which is a term you are probably happy to accept. But motiveless passion only has any meaning when we understand totally the depth of our motives.

This post was last updated by Paul Dimmock Sat, 02 Mar 2019.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sat, 02 Mar 2019 #66
Thumb_profiel Wim Opdam Belgium 1398 posts in this forum Offline

Paul Dimmock wrote:

Wim Opdam: You may say what you want, but that appears a lot different from what K is saying.

Sir, I have said what I want: to explore this question.
You cannot explore this with me if you just compare what I am saying with what K said fifty years ago and draw a quick conclusion.

And is this not also a quick conclusion ??

Sir, truth may be explained fifty years ago or a million years or at this very moment it still remain the truth !
there is only a reason to explore if the earth is flat if you don't except that it is round !

Paul Dimmock wrote:
I am saying that not only are our conditioned responses, thoughts, beliefs and opinions based on something already dead and gone but it is also the thinker, the seeker and the investigator trying to make sense of the past who is himself already dead and gone.

That is a conclusion , which don't make any sense !

Paul Dimmock wrote:
What is the source of any real and vibrant energy, if there is such a thing?

That's begins with a good question but ends with a contradiction.
It's an expression of your passion

Paul Dimmock wrote:
K calls it motiveless passion, which is a term you are probably happy to accept. But motiveless passion only has any meaning when we understand totally the depth of our motives.

The term 'motiveles Passion ' is new for me, so how could I be happy to accept, unless you think that I accept everything because of the reference 'K calls it'.

Paul Dimmock wrote:
But motiveless passion only has any meaning when we understand totally the depth of our motives.

Are you saying that it is possible that 'motiveless passion' has no meaning ?. Although i don't know what you mean by it, it still seems weird.

Truth will unfold itself to those who enquire their own actions.

This post was last updated by Wim Opdam Sat, 02 Mar 2019.

Sign in to recommend  This post has been recommended by 2 readers
Back to Top
Sat, 02 Mar 2019 #67
Thumb_pd Paul Dimmock United Kingdom 210 posts in this forum Offline

Wim Opdam: Are you saying that it is possible that 'motiveless passion' has no meaning?

While we are driven by motives, the phrase 'motiveless passion' has no meaning. Therefore, what are our motives? What are the passions that drive us to come here, to discuss, argue, contradict and all the rest of it? So motiveless passion only has a meaning when we are totally clear about our own motives. Then the very phrase may be redundant because the thing itself exists, not just our projected hopes. Motives give us the illusion of movement and life, just as the ambition of a greedy man carries him forward so that he can make all his mischief in the world. Now I said our conditioning is founded on something already dead; and that the entity who seeks to remedy or transcend this conditioning is itself also a dead entity. To you this may look like a conclusion, but I want to go into it and find out. Will you explore this with me?

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sat, 02 Mar 2019 #68
Thumb_img_0244 Jack Pine United States 5755 posts in this forum Offline

Paul Dimmock wrote:
What is enslaving us now, - all our conditioning - is it a living thing?

It is your life, our lives, so if conditioning is dead so are we. It appears your way of looking at conditioning as being either living or dead maybe getting in the way of your understanding of what conditioning is and how it affects our lives.

In understanding our conditioning, our response to life based on the past, is it necessary to dwell on the question of whether it is living or dead? Have you considered whether that discussion is helping you to understand how your every response is based on the past?

Is the conditioning one has to drive an automobile dead? Is one's conditioning to learn a language, a vocation and all the other of countless things one is conditioned to do in life to survive dead?

The conditioning we are talking about dying to is the psychological conditioning that feeds an image we have of ourselves that is false. But false does not imply death. If K said one has to die to one's conditioning then for K, at least, conditioning is alive.

Also, I agree with Wim and his response to you and in particular his response to you when you mentioned K's " statement of 50 years ago". The implication being that it, the statement, being that old has somehow nullified the validity of it.

Sign in to recommend  This post has been recommended by 1 reader
Back to Top
Sat, 02 Mar 2019 #69
Thumb_screenshot_20180710-010635 One Self United States 1456 posts in this forum Offline

paul wrote:
So motiveless passion only has a meaning when we are totally clear about our own motives.

That is right . If I observe my motives in everything that I do throughout the day without condemnation then out of that observation the other may be. But if I tell you what my motive is then that is totally different thing. I may not know my motive and make up something that sounds good. Do you understand what I am saying? No?

This post was last updated by One Self Sat, 02 Mar 2019.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sat, 02 Mar 2019 #70
Thumb_pd Paul Dimmock United Kingdom 210 posts in this forum Offline

jamie f: You have split it into two. On the one hand you have passion driven by motive and on the other you have motiveless passion. Of course it is the motiveless passion you are chasing.

No, there is only motive. Forget motiveless passion; it is just an idea.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sat, 02 Mar 2019 #71
Thumb_pd Paul Dimmock United Kingdom 210 posts in this forum Offline

Jack Pine wrote: Also, I agree with Wim and his response to you and in particular his response to you when you mentioned K's " statement of 50 years ago". The implication being that it, the statement, being that old has somehow nullified the validity of it.

No, K is perfectly correct. It is not K I am objecting to. It is the comparison that creates the difficulty. You are doing the same thing.

This post was last updated by Paul Dimmock Sat, 02 Mar 2019.

Sign in to recommend  This post has been recommended by 1 reader
Back to Top
Sun, 03 Mar 2019 #72
Thumb_img_0244 Jack Pine United States 5755 posts in this forum Offline

Paul Dimmock wrote:
It is the comparison that creates the difficulty. You are doing the same thing.

I'd appreciate it if you could provide an example where you think I am comparing to whom or to what? I'm not really sure what you are referring to.

Maybe we should be clear about what "conditioning" is. To me it means a response in the present to a particular stimuli based on the past. Conditioning is training. As I have pointed out some conditioning, actually quite a bit, is necessary to carry on our daily lives.

An example of psychological conditioning would be to have an image of someone, your wife, that is based on past experiences, beliefs, ideas and so on. In this case one is not responding to who the wife really is but rather to who one thinks she is. The image that thought has created. To see someone without the conditioning, especially someone we have known for a long time and are close to, is exceedingly difficult. It takes tremendous attention, patience and awareness of our thoughts and the roots of these thoughts.

I wasn't aware of this thing called conditioned thought before I first read K more than 40 years ago. But it was not too long before I could see for myself the truth of what K was pointing out. So I am not accepting what K said just because he said it and became an authority for me. I see it for myself. And I am going to guess that this is the case for a great many people who have seriously gone into what K had to say.

Unfortunately, it's not enough to just see conditioning or understand conditioning. I can see that there is so much more that I don't understand and that I probably will never understand about what K pointed out. But all one can do is look, be aware, give one's attention to their own life, their thinking, their habits and so on.

Intellectualizing about it doesn't seem to help. In fact it seems to be a hinderance, a blockage, a diversion, an escape and an illusion.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sun, 03 Mar 2019 #73
Thumb_screenshot_20180710-010635 One Self United States 1456 posts in this forum Offline

Paul Dimmock wrote:
No, K is perfectly correct.

So why bother?

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sun, 03 Mar 2019 #74
Thumb_screenshot_20180710-010635 One Self United States 1456 posts in this forum Offline

Facts are what matters in this Krishnamurti's site . Krishnamurti himself is of no importance. Hopefully some of us in this Krishnamurti's discussion group see facts.,

Sign in to recommend  This post has been recommended by 1 reader
Back to Top
Sun, 03 Mar 2019 #75
Thumb_pd Paul Dimmock United Kingdom 210 posts in this forum Offline

Jack Pine: I wasn't aware of this thing called conditioned thought before I first read K more than 40 years ago. But it was not too long before I could see for myself the truth of what K was pointing out. So I am not accepting what K said just because he said it and became an authority for me. I see it for myself. And I am going to guess that this is the case for a great many people who have seriously gone into what K had to say.

Yes, but who or what is the 'myself' that sees it? This is the whole question. The 'myself' is also the product of conditioned thought. There is no unconditioned entity either now or in the future. Just because it is a moving thing, it doesn't mean it is alive. So I am trying to show something. But you won't get it if you compare what I am saying to K.

To repeat what I said earlier: our conditioning is founded on something already dead; and the entity who seeks to remedy or transcend this conditioning is itself also a dead entity. Can we explore this together? Or are we more interested in other questions?

This post was last updated by Paul Dimmock Sun, 03 Mar 2019.

Sign in to recommend  This post has been recommended by 1 reader
Back to Top
Sun, 03 Mar 2019 #76
Thumb_profiel Wim Opdam Belgium 1398 posts in this forum Offline

Paul Dimmock wrote:
To repeat what I said earlier: our conditioning is founded on something already dead; and the entity who seeks to remedy or transcend this conditioning is itself also a dead entity.

so if I understand you correctly, the entity that poses this question is already dead and asks how it can transcend its own death.

Truth will unfold itself to those who enquire their own actions.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sun, 03 Mar 2019 #77
Thumb_pd Paul Dimmock United Kingdom 210 posts in this forum Offline

Wim Opdam: So if I understand you correctly, the entity that poses this question is already dead and asks how it can transcend its own death.

Yes. It is a false step from the start.

This post was last updated by Paul Dimmock Sun, 03 Mar 2019.

Sign in to recommend  This post has been recommended by 1 reader
Back to Top
Sun, 03 Mar 2019 #78
Thumb_screenshot_20180710-010635 One Self United States 1456 posts in this forum Offline

People are basically and fundamentally stupid and unwise. Don't depend on people . Specially in this forum .

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sun, 03 Mar 2019 #79
Thumb_profiel Wim Opdam Belgium 1398 posts in this forum Offline

Paul Dimmock wrote:

Wim Opdam: So if I understand you correctly, the entity that poses this question is already dead and asks how it can transcend its own death.

Yes. It is a false step from the start.

Sorry, but It can't be even a start because it is death and death is death.

Truth will unfold itself to those who enquire their own actions.

This post was last updated by Wim Opdam Sun, 03 Mar 2019.

Sign in to recommend  This post has been recommended by 1 reader
Back to Top
Mon, 04 Mar 2019 #80
Thumb_img_0244 Jack Pine United States 5755 posts in this forum Offline

Paul, you have stated that conditioning is dead. This is a conclusion. Conclusions are the product of thinking. Thinking, all thinking, is conditioned. So what you say is "dead" has come to a conclusion about itself.

Conclusions are dead-ends. Can you just be aware of your conditioning as it occurs without judging it, without coming to a conclusion about it?

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 04 Mar 2019 #81
Thumb_profiel Wim Opdam Belgium 1398 posts in this forum Offline

Wim Opdam wrote:

Paul Dimmock wrote:

Wim Opdam: So if I understand you correctly, the entity that poses this question is already dead and asks how it can transcend its own death.

Yes. It is a false step from the start.

Sorry, but It can't be even a start because it is death and death is death.

Can you see that the entity that poses the question
must be something more than only its condition ??

And that the whole process of understanding, seeing, living etc., etc.
Is using this entity, if it is not blocked or disturbed by the conditioning ??

Truth will unfold itself to those who enquire their own actions.

This post was last updated by Wim Opdam Mon, 04 Mar 2019.

Sign in to recommend  This post has been recommended by 1 reader
Back to Top
Mon, 04 Mar 2019 #82
Thumb_pd Paul Dimmock United Kingdom 210 posts in this forum Offline

Wim Opdam: Sorry, but it can't be even a start because it is death and death is death.

Go slowly. We are exploring something altogether new. First of all, do you accept that your conditioning is based on something already dead?

Sign in to recommend  This post has been recommended by 1 reader
Back to Top
Mon, 04 Mar 2019 #83
Thumb_pd Paul Dimmock United Kingdom 210 posts in this forum Offline

Jack Pine: You have stated that conditioning is dead. This is a conclusion. Conclusions are the product of thinking. Thinking, all thinking, is conditioned. So what you say is "dead" has come to a conclusion about itself. Conclusions are dead-ends. Can you just be aware of your conditioning as it occurs without judging it, without coming to a conclusion about it?

But you are ignoring my second point, which is that the entity who is aware of his conditioning is also a dead entity. This is a much bigger pill to swallow. It is not a conclusion. A statement is being made which is open for questioning.

This post was last updated by Paul Dimmock Mon, 04 Mar 2019.

Sign in to recommend  This post has been recommended by 1 reader
Back to Top
Mon, 04 Mar 2019 #84
Thumb_img_0244 Jack Pine United States 5755 posts in this forum Offline

Paul Dimmock wrote:
But you are ignoring my second point, which is that the entity who is aware of his conditioning is also a dead entity. This is a much bigger pill to swallow. It is not a conclusion. A statement is being made which is open for questioning.

Semantics, the above. Paul, can there be awareness without coming to a conclusion? Which you seem to be doing. I have highlighted it for you above.

And I'm not ignoring your conclusion. It just isn't relevant to me. What does it have to do with being aware of your thoughts, feelings, etc? Thought is limited and conditioned. Therefore everything that thought invents is limited and conditioned. Your thought has invented "dead entities". Intellectualizing is a form of entertainment.

This post was last updated by Jack Pine Mon, 04 Mar 2019.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 04 Mar 2019 #85
Thumb_pd Paul Dimmock United Kingdom 210 posts in this forum Offline

Jack Pine: Thought is limited and conditioned. Therefore everything that thought invents is limited and conditioned.

But thought has also invented you, hasn't it? Or are you saying that there is a you who is separate from thought?

Sign in to recommend  This post has been recommended by 1 reader
Back to Top
Mon, 04 Mar 2019 #86
Thumb_dm Dan McDermott United States 1453 posts in this forum Offline

Paul Dimmock wrote:
Or are you saying that there is a you who is separate from thought?

Is the point being brought out here that 'if' there is no 'me' apart from thought, then it is thought itself that is doing the 'watching' and 'following' of itself? And that it hopes by doing this that 'something' will happen? In other words thought as 'me' has adopted, attached itself to K.'s teaching and using that connection will keep itself moving? (Rather than cease.) Sorry that all may not be well put but it is pointing at another way or pattern in which psychological thought maintains itself in the guise of trying to bring itself to an 'end'...? (which K. has said must happen.)

This post was last updated by Dan McDermott Mon, 04 Mar 2019.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 05 Mar 2019 #87
Thumb_img_0244 Jack Pine United States 5755 posts in this forum Offline

Paul Dimmock wrote:
But thought has also invented you, hasn't it?

Of course. What we all think of as "our self" is the total accumulation of our thoughts; beliefs, experiences and so on. There isn't any self beyond thought. Now you are starting to catch on.

Paul Dimmock wrote:
Or are you saying that there is a you who is separate from thought?

No that is not at all what I'm saying. Is that what you are saying?

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 05 Mar 2019 #88
Thumb_screenshot_20180710-010635 One Self United States 1456 posts in this forum Offline

It is very unfortunate that the regulars in this site(about five or six people) lack intelligence and keep teaching each other things that are elementary . Where is maturity? May be the nature of thought is contradictory and useless. And yet we are all addicted to thought and intellect . We live in the past because the present is painful for us.

Sign in to recommend  This post has been recommended by 1 reader
Back to Top
Tue, 05 Mar 2019 #89
Thumb_profiel Wim Opdam Belgium 1398 posts in this forum Offline

Paul Dimmock wrote:

Wim Opdam:
Sorry, but it can't be even a start because it is death and death is death.

Go slowly. We are exploring something altogether new. First of all, do you accept that your conditioning is based on something already dead?

Are you not going to fast by beginning with a statement instead of a question.?

Paul Dimmock wrote:
our conditioning is founded on something already dead; and the entity who seeks to remedy or transcend this conditioning is itself also a dead entity. Can we explore this together?

To begin with; describe what you mean by conditioning, entity and death !

If you want K. out of it you can't start with what he found out, can you ?
If you want me to accept what you're stating we don't explore this together, are we ?

each inquiry starts with at least one question and the framework in which that question is asked is also the limitation of the answer.

a lot of what we know is founded 500 years ago by the observation of the outside world en marviously described and drafted in his codicils by leonardo da vinci, but he was jalous of the craftmanship of michel angelo.

The beauty of both their works is still present and not death, is it ?

Truth will unfold itself to those who enquire their own actions.

Sign in to recommend  This post has been recommended by 1 reader
Back to Top
Tue, 05 Mar 2019 #90
Thumb_pd Paul Dimmock United Kingdom 210 posts in this forum Offline

Jack Pine: What we all think of as "our self" is the total accumulation of our thoughts; beliefs, experiences and so on. There isn't any self beyond thought.

Dan: Is the point being brought out here that 'if' there is no 'me' apart from thought, then it is thought itself that is doing the 'watching' and 'following' of itself?

Yes, this is basically the point. So what is the energy that breaks through all our conditioning? What is its source? It cannot come from thought; it cannot come from within the confines of the self. All this we are agreed upon, apparently.

This post was last updated by Paul Dimmock Tue, 05 Mar 2019.

Sign in to recommend  This post has been recommended by 1 reader
Back to Top
Displaying posts 61 - 90 of 146 in total
To quote a portion of this post in your reply, first select the text and then click this "Quote" link.

(N.B. Be sure to insert an empty line between the quoted text and your reply.)